nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

The White Wolf wrote: »

I thought Prime Time were knowingly taking the piss out of him there. They sensitively interviewed families directly effected by the issue while showing Lenihan, as you say a Twitter crank, furiously typing over his laptop with a deranged expression.

He did indeed come across as deranged, but I don't think a Prime Time special is any place for taking the piss.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Point out EXACTLY where I said that please?

That seems to be what you’re suggesting when you say that because of the current mindset it’s transphobic to question whether someone is trans. Well yes, it is!

I can understand why you find it objectionable that anyone might think you were transphobic for asking them are they trans, and you don’t imagine if anyone were to ask someone are they trans that they wouldn’t be humiliated by the question?

Put yourself in the position of the person who is being asked the question, because that’s what you appear to be suggesting is that people should have a right to do that and not be regarded as transphobic, and the other person should not be humiliated by being questioned like that. I just can’t get my head around why you would think asking someone are they trans is in any context a reasonable question, or why you imagine anyone would be obligated to answer that question.

What do you even do if they say no, and you’re not convinced? You might be satisfied with their answer and think fair enough, but another person might not be satisfied and may want to go further in order to confirm their suspicions and commit assault, feeling entirely justified in doing so because they were concerned about their safety??

[Deleted User]

Neyite wrote: »

Exactly!

The point is that it self-id means that men who are no more trans than you or I can now enter those spaces and claim to be trans as a way of legitimately being there. And because of the current mindset where it's transphobic to question whether someone is genuinely trans, or whether they are exploiting Self ID for their own ends.

I am fully on board with transwomen sharing my changing room, wards, toilet areas. I am fully on board with transwomen who need shelter/protection from males who wish them harm. (I appreciate that not all women share my feelings) But the problem with self ID is that it also means that the door to those spaces gets left open for non-trans men to claim they are trans on the day and follow both me and a trans-woman into those safe spaces to do us harm. And some men are doing exactly that.

So I'm genuinely asking here. How do we differentiate between the genuine trans women who need protection and to share our safe spaces and the men who falsely claim to be trans in order to follow them into those spaces to hurt them, without discriminating or being called transphobic?

The real question that you might want to be asking is about we protect women and men indeed from assaults of all kinds from all directions. This narrow laser focus on the hypothetical issue of assaults on women by transgender women isn't supported by any quantative evidence.

It is a trojan horse for having a go at trans people.

Gentlemanne

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'd never heard of Steven Crowder before, just googled him. Wow. Explains so much.

Yeah, it's really not surprising to me that this user is willing to defend the anti-trans position so virulently when his username is based off a person who is so undeniably a right-wing homophobe and transphobe.

He is taking the piss if he thinks his choice of username is irrelevant in a thread like this.

Neyite

I asked a clear and genuine question about the safety of trans women. And immediately got shot down as attempting to humiliate predatory men and accused of transphobia.

We were told as women, to permit trans women into our safer spaces because they were at risk of assault in mens spaces. Many on this thread have been at pains to remind us of the dangers trans women face from aggressive men. And I fully agree with that.

So now when I asked that when these same aggressive men follow women including trans women into that supposedly safe space to assault us and claim to be transgender, we have no recourse, it's tough sh!t because we'll get howled down with cries of transphobe and accusations that we are trying to humiliate the poor ickle rapist in our space.

The aggressive man's wants must always take priority over women - including trans women who sought the shelter and safety of our spaces in the first place.
Well then. That's me told, isn't it?

Sorry about that

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That seems to be what you’re suggesting when you say that because of the current mindset it’s transphobic to question whether someone is trans. Well yes, it is!

I can understand why you find it objectionable that anyone might think you were transphobic for asking them are they trans, and you don’t imagine if anyone were to ask someone are they trans that they wouldn’t be humiliated by the question?

Put yourself in the position of the person who is being asked the question, because that’s what you appear to be suggesting is that people should have a right to do that and not be regarded as transphobic, and the other person should not be humiliated by being questioned like that. I just can’t get my head around why you would think asking someone are they trans is in any context a reasonable question, or why you imagine anyone would be obligated to answer that question.

What do you even do if they say no, and you’re not convinced? You might be satisfied with their answer and think fair enough, but another person might not be satisfied and may want to go further in order to confirm their suspicions and commit assault, feeling entirely justified in doing so because they were concerned about their safety??

In 1951 Solomon Asch conducted conformity studies, in which he found that subjects would give obviously incorrect answers to simple questions, when the rest of the (planted) group had also done so. Subjects admitted that they did this, to fit in with the group, and to avoid ridicule. 25% of them gave the right answers every time, in spite of the peer pressure (good for them).

Today, we have people such as yourself who insist that by asking questions of men, who believe that they are women (even though they are not, and can never be), is phobic or hateful behaviour. You are demanding obedience of thought and word, and trying to shut down discussion. It's really sinister; truly Orwellian.

suicide_circus

I have a suspicion that the quest for "trans rights" will not end with the legal stuff; self id, access to single sex spaces etc...i think the fight will continue until everyone in the world repeats and believes the mantra "transwomen are women".

LLMMLL

Neyite wrote: »

Exactly!

The point is that it self-id means that men who are no more trans than you or I can now enter those spaces and claim to be trans as a way of legitimately being there. And because of the current mindset where it's transphobic to question whether someone is genuinely trans, or whether they are exploiting Self ID for their own ends.

I am fully on board with transwomen sharing my changing room, wards, toilet areas. I am fully on board with transwomen who need shelter/protection from males who wish them harm. (I appreciate that not all women share my feelings) But the problem with self ID is that it also means that the door to those spaces gets left open for non-trans men to claim they are trans on the day and follow both me and a trans-woman into those safe spaces to do us harm. And some men are doing exactly that.

So I'm genuinely asking here. How do we differentiate between the genuine trans women who need protection and to share our safe spaces and the men who falsely claim to be trans in order to follow them into those spaces to hurt them, without discriminating or being called transphobic?

If a man wants to follow a woman into a space to hurt her why would he need to use self id and claim to be trans. It makes zero sense.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have a suspicion that the quest for "trans rights" will not end with the legal stuff; self id, access to single sex spaces etc...i think the fight will continue until everyone in the world repeats and believes the mantra "transwomen are women".

There’s something quasi-religious about it, isn’t there? Even the transgender women who are like “Ahhhhhh no, I’m a transgender woman” aren’t excused. Sure, what would they know? :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

I asked a clear and genuine question about the safety of trans women. And immediately got shot down as attempting to humiliate predatory men and accused of transphobia.

We were told as women, to permit trans women into our safer spaces because they were at risk of assault in mens spaces. Many on this thread have been at pains to remind us of the dangers trans women face from aggressive men. And I fully agree with that.

So now when I asked that when these same aggressive men follow women including trans women into that supposedly safe space to assault us and claim to be transgender, we have no recourse, it's tough sh!t because we'll get howled down with cries of transphobe and accusations that we are trying to humiliate the poor ickle rapist in our space.

The aggressive man's wants must always take priority over women - including trans women who sought the shelter and safety of our spaces in the first place.
Well then. That's me told, isn't it?

I didn’t shoot down the question, I was pointing out very simply that if you have the right to ask that question of others, they have the same right as you do to ask the question of you.

I personally don’t bandy around terms like “transphobic”, but that’s what it is, and that’s what other people will call it - an irrational fear of people who are transgender. Given the way you’ve presented it above changes the scenario completely - a fear of someone who is known to have committed rape of women, and if you’re their target demographic your fears are entirely justified. If a rapist is shouting you down as a transphobe because you express a fear of being raped by a rapist, a reasonable person will see what’s plainly going on there.

Personally I think the idea of safe spaces is a complete nonsense, and I say that from having worked in and worked with many people who these safe spaces are meant to be safe for. That’s why I was glad to see the recent introduction of changes to accommodation legislation and working with AirBnB to provide accommodation for people who have been victims of domestic abuse and their families, and I hope it’s followed up with appropriate supports (in the vast majority of cases it isn’t).

There’s no permitting rapists to take priority over anyone. There’s also no permitting people to humiliate other people on the basis of their suspicions that the person might be a man disguised as a woman. I’ve known plenty of women who don’t conform to my perception of women - women who have to shave their sideburns, flat chested women, overweight women, underweight women, etc. If you’re gonna ask them are they a man, I don’t expect they’re under any obligation to be polite or civil to you in response. At the same time it wouldn’t justify them knocking anyone’s teeth back in their throat either.

I’m 18 stone and one of my friends used have no bother shifting me out of a chair when she wanted to sit down. She pointed out that as a nurse she’s used to shifting a lot heavier weights than me. We were messing btw, normally I’d get up and let a lady sit down, but my friend would punch my teeth down my throat if I ever displayed such old fashioned chivalry towards her :pac:

Basically you have to make all sorts of assumptions in order to justify the scenario you’re describing, and it is a hypothetical scenario that ignores so many other factors in order to justify prejudice and discrimination against an innocent party. Basically your scenario reminds me of what’s called the gay panic defence or the trans panic defence in this case, which is ironically enough used mainly by men, not women, in order to justify their violent behaviour towards others!

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's not a 'niche' definition. It's the definition. And until someone can at least begin to give a new one that will remain the case. Yiu still, after repeated attempts, have not given yours. And yiu haven't because you can't. You either talk of biology, which you can't because males aren't females, or else you refer to silly stereotypes which brings its own set of problems.

This is why you flatly refuse to give a definition even though you have been asked to repeatedly.

It is a niche definiton. If you asked 100 random people to define woman how many of those would give the definition about gametes that you propose?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

Exactly!

The point is that it self-id means that men who are no more trans than you or I can now enter those spaces and claim to be trans as a way of legitimately being there. And because of the current mindset where it's transphobic to question whether someone is genuinely trans, or whether they are exploiting Self ID for their own ends.

I am fully on board with transwomen sharing my changing room, wards, toilet areas. I am fully on board with transwomen who need shelter/protection from males who wish them harm. (I appreciate that not all women share my feelings) But the problem with self ID is that it also means that the door to those spaces gets left open for non-trans men to claim they are trans on the day and follow both me and a trans-woman into those safe spaces to do us harm. And some men are doing exactly that.

So I'm genuinely asking here. How do we differentiate between the genuine trans women who need protection and to share our safe spaces and the men who falsely claim to be trans in order to follow them into those spaces to hurt them, without discriminating or being called transphobic?

It’s so refreshing to read on this a thread a post where I don’t agree with all the points made but that the person writing it is respectful. No lashing out or sulking, just setting out your stall without fuss.

You won’t get a coherent answer on the self ID thing. I’m not sure why people are reluctant to answer but I think it’s because they don’t want to cede any ground. That would be to admit that there are problems with their philosophy.

suicide_circus

When Jehovah's Witnesses used to go door to door I would just say "No, thanks, I don't believe that stuff"....I say the same to this.

Neyite

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a man wants to follow a woman into a space to hurt her why would he need to use self id and claim to be trans. It makes zero sense.

Before self ID, women and those who present as women used women's spaces. If a person presenting as male walked in, we could tell him to GTFO or call management and they would throw him out.

Now we can't. It's transphobic to throw anyone presenting as male out of female spaces. So we can no longer protect the transwomen who needed and were extended that safety in the first place.

Gruffalux

If someone stands up to let a lady sit down, how do they know its a lady?
How do they know its a chair?
Mystic koans for the 21st century.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is a niche definiton. If you asked 100 random people to define woman how many of those would give the definition about gametes that you propose?

99. The one that doesn't would be you. And the definition doesn't just specify gametes anyhow.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

Before self ID, women and those who present as women used women's spaces. If a person presenting as male walked in, we could tell him to GTFO or call management and they would throw him out.

Now we can't. It's transphobic to throw anyone presenting as male out of female spaces. So we can no longer protect the transwomen who needed and were extended that safety in the first place.

This is it, exactly. Because people talk of gender recognition certs but nobody will able to demand to see somebody’s GRC, let’s be real here. And that can be exploited.

One eyed Jack

Sorry about that wrote: »

In 1951 Solomon Asch conducted conformity studies, in which he found that subjects would give obviously incorrect answers to simple questions, when the rest of the (planted) group had also done so. Subjects admitted that they did this, to fit in with the group, and to avoid ridicule. 25% of them gave the right answers every time, in spite of the peer pressure (good for them).

Today, we have people such as yourself who insist that by asking questions of men, who believe that they are women (even though they are not, and can never be), is phobic or hateful behaviour. You are demanding obedience of thought and word, and trying to shut down discussion. It's really sinister; truly Orwellian.

But I haven’t done any of that? I’ve specifically said I wouldn’t use the term transphobic, and good luck to you finding anywhere I said the behaviour was hateful. I’m not demanding anything and I’ve said that already too, I’ve said that people are going to do what they want regardless of what anyone else thinks. I’m certainly not trying to shut down discussion, I’m all for open discussion, and that’s why I don’t use terms like transphobe, bigot or any of the rest of that nonsense.

If I don’t give a shìte about being called those terms, I don’t imagine people who are so strident in their beliefs do either. Being Catholic for example, being called a paedophile or a paedophile supporter or a child abuser is par for the course, water off a ducks back tbh. Anyone who imagines that attempting to humiliate anyone is an effective strategy to get them to conform to that persons way of thinking is quite frankly an idiot. It does the exact opposite - the person is thinking why would anyone want to conform to the other persons ideas in order not to be called names by that person? That just means they’re not called names, it doesn’t do anything to stop the person harassing other people who don’t agree with them.

In your conformity studies tests it’s people who are transgender would be expected to conform in order to avoid ridicule and to fit in with the group. You basically have an issue with the 25% who won’t. You aren’t saying good for them though, instead you’re trying to make out that you as part of the 99% of people who aren’t transgender are the “real victims” who are being forced to conform to the 1% of the 1% way of thinking.

You’re not, and you can’t be compelled to either, you have both freedom of conscience and freedom of expression enshrined in Human Rights Law. Those rights are not absolute, and they are limited to protect everyone in a democratic society. In essence, people have the freedom to express themselves, but nobody has any immediate right to have their opinions protected by law. That was essentially the judgement in the Maya Forstater case. Everyone in society is expected to conform to the laws of that society, even the 25% who refuse to conform, and there are consequences for them when they choose not to conform. Those rules are the same for everyone, and now they are the same for people who are transgender because being recognised in law as their preferred gender means they take on all the rights and responsibilities of their acquired sex -

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

(2) The date of issue of a gender recognition certificate shall be—

(a) the date on which the Minister decides to issue the certificate under section 8 (3)(a), or

(b) the date of an order of the court under section 17 (2)(a).

(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—

(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,

(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.

(4) The person to whom the gender recognition certificate is issued shall not be required to produce it as proof of gender or identity for any purpose save as required by law.

(5) The person to whom the gender recognition certificate is issued may produce it to provide proof of gender or identity, if he or she so chooses.

(6) The issue of a gender recognition certificate shall not affect the rights or liabilities of a person or consequences of an action by the person in their original gender prior to the date of issue of the certificate.

(7) This section shall operate subject to the provisions of this Act.

(8) In this section “civil partnership registration” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 .

Gender Recognition Act 2015

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Before self ID, women and those who present as women used women's spaces. If a person presenting as male walked in, we could tell him to GTFO or call management and they would throw him out.

Now we can't. It's transphobic to throw anyone presenting as male out of female spaces. So we can no longer protect the transwomen who needed and were extended that safety in the first place.

You can! You could always do that, you can even do it when your fears for your safety are on the basis of the presence of another woman, and they can call you a misogynist.

I mentioned it already before but these women’s spaces you speak of are also staffed by men, I’ve been in plenty of them myself and there has never been an issue. I’ve spoken to plenty of people who have been in them and they have had a number of issues, the most prominent one being the feeling that they were constantly being judged and intimidated by other women there and female members of staff, from the social worker who belittled them as mothers, to the psychologist who probed them and made them feel as though their circumstances in which they found themselves were their fault.

In reality I don’t imagine the vast majority of people who are transgender want to be “protected” by anyone, nor do the vast majority of women in my experience who have experienced what this “protection” involves. They are much happier when they have appropriate supports in place to ensure they have the opportunities to provide for themselves and their families and they have the freedom to do so, as opposed to being holed up in dingy overcrowded accommodation and expected to be grateful they’re getting anything at all.

Sorry about that

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I haven’t done any of that? I’ve specifically said I wouldn’t use the term transphobic, and good luck to you finding anywhere I said the behaviour was hateful. I’m not demanding anything and I’ve said that already too, I’ve said that people are going to do what they want regardless of what anyone else thinks. I’m certainly not trying to shut down discussion, I’m all for open discussion, and that’s why I don’t use terms like transphobe, bigot or any of the rest of that nonsense.

If I don’t give a shìte about being called those terms, I don’t imagine people who are so strident in their beliefs do either. Being Catholic for example, being called a paedophile or a paedophile supporter or a child abuser is par for the course, water off a ducks back tbh. Anyone who imagines that attempting to humiliate anyone is an effective strategy to get them to conform to that persons way of thinking is quite frankly an idiot. It does the exact opposite - the person is thinking why would anyone want to conform to the other persons ideas in order not to be called names by that person? That just means they’re not called names, it doesn’t do anything to stop the person harassing other people who don’t agree with them.

In your conformity studies tests it’s people who are transgender would be expected to conform in order to avoid ridicule and to fit in with the group. You basically have an issue with the 25% who won’t. You aren’t saying good for them though, instead you’re trying to make out that you as part of the 99% of people who aren’t transgender are the “real victims” who are being forced to conform to the 1% of the 1% way of thinking.

You’re not, and you can’t be compelled to either, you have both freedom of conscience and freedom of expression enshrined in Human Rights Law. Those rights are not absolute, and they are limited to protect everyone in a democratic society. In essence, people have the freedom to express themselves, but nobody has any immediate right to have their opinions protected by law. That was essentially the judgement in the Maya Forstater case. Everyone in society is expected to conform to the laws of that society, even the 25% who refuse to conform, and there are consequences for them when they choose not to conform. Those rules are the same for everyone, and now they are the same for people who are transgender because being recognised in law as their preferred gender means they take on all the rights and responsibilities of their acquired sex -

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

(2) The date of issue of a gender recognition certificate shall be—

(a) the date on which the Minister decides to issue the certificate under section 8 (3)(a), or

(b) the date of an order of the court under section 17 (2)(a).

(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—

(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,

(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.

(4) The person to whom the gender recognition certificate is issued shall not be required to produce it as proof of gender or identity for any purpose save as required by law.

(5) The person to whom the gender recognition certificate is issued may produce it to provide proof of gender or identity, if he or she so chooses.

(6) The issue of a gender recognition certificate shall not affect the rights or liabilities of a person or consequences of an action by the person in their original gender prior to the date of issue of the certificate.

(7) This section shall operate subject to the provisions of this Act.

(8) In this section “civil partnership registration” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 .

Gender Recognition Act 2015

Quote: One eyed Jack
That seems to be what you’re suggesting when you say that because of the current mindset it’s transphobic to question whether someone is trans. Well yes, it is!

OMM 0000

Gruffalox wrote: »

If someone stands up to let a lady sit down, how do they know its a lady?
How do they know its a chair?
Mystic koans for the 21st century.

This isn't the 1800s, so you shouldn't stand up to let a lady sit down unless she's pregnant, injured, or very old.

Trans women can't get pregnant, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise. What's fascinating is how many people are willing to go along with the make believe.

I guess a trans woman can be old or injured (e.g. injured penis).

Gruffalux

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This isn't the 1800s, so you shouldn't stand up to let a lady sit down unless she's pregnant, injured, or very old.

Trans women can't get pregnant, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise. What's fascinating is how many people are willing to go along with the make believe.

I guess a trans woman can be old or injured (e.g. injured penis).

I was referring to a poster who seems unable to define woman and yet claims to always stand up and offer their chair to a lady.

CtevenSrowder

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This isn't the 1800s, so you shouldn't stand up to let a lady sit down unless she's pregnant, injured, or very old.

Trans women can't get pregnant, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise. What's fascinating is how many people are willing to go along with the make believe.

I guess a trans woman can be old or injured (e.g. injured penis).

Hmm what if its a pregnant man though

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This is it, exactly. Because people talk of gender recognition certs but nobody will able to demand to see somebody’s GRC, let’s be real here. And that can be exploited.

You can demand to see it, but by that same token, people are under no obligation to show you anything. Even when Trump demanded to see Obama’s birth cert he was essentially told to naff off. I expect a similar exchange is likely if anyone thought to walk up to someone and ask them to produce a form of identification.

A certificate wouldn’t be much use in any case anyway, a physical examination and an invasive assessment is the only way anyone could be absolutely certain, and even then I’m not sure the person making the complaint would care, they just want that person gone.

LLMMLL

Neyite wrote: »

Before self ID, women and those who present as women used women's spaces. If a person presenting as male walked in, we could tell him to GTFO or call management and they would throw him out.

Now we can't. It's transphobic to throw anyone presenting as male out of female spaces. So we can no longer protect the transwomen who needed and were extended that safety in the first place.

So previously a male entered a space to harm you and you told him to get out and he complied?

But now this man who enters to harm you can't be told to get out and that's why you can't prevent him harming you?

Right.....

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I was referring to a poster who seems unable to define woman and yet claims to always stand up and offer their chair to a lady.

Jesus, really? I have given the definition of woman multiple times on just this thread already -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve given you my definition of a woman already, countless times now, and yet you still insist that I haven’t? Characteristics and traits commonly associated with either the female or the male sex of the species. There’s your definition you’re looking for while demonstrating that there is a distinction between the sexes

You did say you scrolled past my posts though.

Of course I’ll stand up and offer my chair to anyone who needs it, it’s never been a big deal, just basic manners! I do understand that there are some people who are offended by the concept of chivalry and in those cases it’s never a big deal either, they don’t want the seat it’s fine.

I’m known to make allowances for people with crippling anxiety too, but not to the degree where their demands are considered unreasonable.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

99. The one that doesn't would be you. And the definition doesn't just specify gametes anyhow.

Do the experiment and find out. I'd be surprised if even one knew what a gamete is let alone used that word in their definiton of woman.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do the experiment and find out. I'd be surprised if even one knew what a gamete is let alone used that word in their definiton of woman.

In woman? The definition of women I gave you is 'adult human female'.

You are mixing up your definitions.

Gamete I'm nearly sure is a word used in junior cert science. Leaving cert definitely. It's not advanced stuff. I think you've a poor opinion of the educational standards of the average Irish person.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

In woman? The definition of women I gave you is 'adult human female'.

You are mixing up your definitions.

Gamete I'm nearly sure is a word used in junior cert science. Leaving cert definitely. It's not advanced stuff. I think you've a poor opinion of the educational standards of the average Irish person.

Ok so for female you are not using the "gamete" definition?

And yes, most people forget their junior cert biology. That's not a poor opinion of education standards. It's a normal opinion about the amount of people who retain can facts from their junior cert courses.

One eyed Jack

Sorry about that wrote: »

Quote: One eyed Jack
That seems to be what you’re suggesting when you say that because of the current mindset it’s transphobic to question whether someone is trans. Well yes, it is!

That refers to what Neyite calls “the current mindset”, it’s not MY mindset, and that’s why I pointed out that I wouldn’t suggest anyone was transphobic, nor would I call anyone transphobic. Someone else might though, so her fear of being labelled transphobic is perfectly rational.

A reasonable person would likely come to the same conclusion.